Global warming and "convenience"

moonrakerz

I'm afraid I'm a bit long in the tooth to get overly excited about the latest disaster waiting to befall mankind.
I don't get any more excited about man-made global warming now than I did about ice ages in the 70s.

Two weeks ago the Government told us to cut down on the booze - today we are told that booze prevents rheumatoid arthritis - good job I was sceptical about the previous scare !

cepheus

moonrakerz wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm a bit long in the tooth to get overly excited about the latest disaster waiting to befall mankind.
I don't get any more excited about man-made global warming now than I did about ice ages in the 70s.

Two weeks ago the Government told us to cut down on the booze - today we are told that booze prevents rheumatoid arthritis - good job I was sceptical about the previous scare !

Isn't this the problem, most of us reading this will be able to 'weather the storm', but can the same be said for our grandchildren?

With regard to booze, this is a classic case of misrepresenting information, which can so easily be achieved with GW. It is well known that small quantities of alcohol are not harmful (some types being slightly beneficial) this has been well publicised for some time. As you well know it is the binge drinking or drinking above twenty odd units a week that is harmful to some of the population. Some people will be immune to this as they are to smoking. Everyone looks for a simple answer. That is, the slightest amount it is good or bad for everyone.

magyar

There is of course another point about all these measures regarding climate change, which is that very few of them do harm to anyone.

It cannot be denied we are running short of natural resources, and few would disagree that a 'greener' world is also a 'nicer' world. Conservation and environmental protection are almost undeniably 'good things'. The worst thing that happens is we spend money when we didn't need to.

So you have a pretty simple question, what's worse - acting on climate change when we didn't need to, or not acting on climate change if we did?

moonrakerz

cepheus wrote: »

drinking above twenty odd units a week that is harmful to some of the population.

I'm sorry - but -

it was only a few weeks ago that it was admitted that the "twenty odd units a week" was a figure that was literally plucked out of thin air with absolutely no medical or scientific foundation to support it.
These figures first appeared in 1987 and have been widely publicised as being the "gospel" truth. However subsequent studies actually found evidence which suggested that these limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.

I read just last week that another recent "health improver" - cholesterol reducing spreads and yoghurts (there seem to be at least 4 acceptable spellings for this !) have now been queried as to whether their "clinically proven" benefits actually exist. Years ago I had a temporary job in a plant making low fat spreads - they are a triumph of chemical engineering, I have never touched one since !

I agree with Magyar's last post in general, but there is a growing trend for Government, National & local, to adopt so-called "green" measures as just another method of increasing revenue or reducing their services. Why should people on limited incomes be forced to pay more for goods/services on the basis of some pretty dodgy science ?

magyar

moonrakerz wrote: »

I agree with Magyar's last post in general, but there is a growing trend for Government, National & local, to adopt so-called "green" measures as just another method of increasing revenue or reducing their services. Why should people on limited incomes be forced to pay more for goods/services on the basis of some pretty dodgy science ?

Ah well that's different, isn't it? Raising taxes on the precept of preventing climate change when in fact it's just a tax is wrong. That doesn't make the concept of environmentalism wrong, it makes those actions wrong.

A_fiend_for_life

magyar wrote: »

Ah well that's different, isn't it? Raising taxes on the precept of preventing climate change when in fact it's just a tax is wrong. That doesn't make the concept of environmentalism wrong, it makes those actions wrong.

Quite agree.

moonrakerz

magyar wrote: »

That doesn't make the concept of environmentalism wrong,

I don't remember saying it was .

cepheus

magyar wrote: »

So you have a pretty simple question, what's worse - acting on climate change when we didn't need to, or not acting on climate change if we did?

Without questioning the validity of climate change this is a fair question in the context that we could simply adapt to climate change, reap the benefits as well as the disadvantages. The problem is that it is difficult to see many advantages to long term global warming especially for the developing world were most people live.

I personally cannot see the wisdom in striving for unlimited growth. Whilst materialism has brought many benefits, much of our production is to support bigger, flashier, faster or just plain different in an attempt to keep up with the trend or beat the Joneses. This philosophy of 'work harder' to 'earn more money' to 'buy more things' is a 'virus of the mind' or meme in technical terminology and is unlikely to bring more happiness. Hence, 'not acting on climate change if we did' is far worse, if somewhat irrelevant.

A_fiend_for_life

magyar wrote: »

There is of course another point about all these measures regarding climate change, which is that very few of them do harm to anyone.

Tend to agree but some of those that do harm folk may have a disproportionate effect.. eg biofuel policies. Mitigation is to send more food aid reducing food sovereignty at the expense of more fuel to the places that need it. In terms of fuel consumption this is like carrying water across a river. The only benefit I can see of this is to create markets for Western goods.

magyar wrote: »

It cannot be denied we are running short of natural resources, and few would disagree that a 'greener' world is also a 'nicer' world. Conservation and environmental protection are almost undeniably 'good things'. The worst thing that happens is we spend money when we didn't need to.

'..spend money we didn't need to..' Are you talking specifically about 'conservation and environmental protection' or global warming at this point?

magyar wrote: »

So you have a pretty simple question, what's worse - acting on climate change when we didn't need to, or not acting on climate change if we did?

Question may be a bit too simple as different actions towards climate change balance the cost benefit / payoff better than others in terms of environment, social and economics.

Buying quality rather than quantity, reducing consumption, reusing and reducing waste and, buying local tend to reduce emissions and environmental impact. To the extent that human activities are influencing climate change in the direction of global warming then such measures are beneficial as well as having social, environmental and economic benefits. ie it is prudent housekeeping. The difficulty is that people differ in their perception, reasoning and effort. Those who are prudent quickly find there is a lack of support for further improvements eg public transport, waste reduction, microgeneration and cap and trade or, a lack of availability eg. local produce and products.

Back to your original poser, '...which is worse..' doing nothing is far worse as there are valid side benefits to mitigating the effects of climate change that far outweigh the cost.

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

I personally cannot see the wisdom in striving for unlimited growth. Whilst materialism has brought many benefits, much of our production is to support bigger, flashier, faster or just plain different in an attempt to keep up with the trend or beat the Joneses. This philosophy of 'work harder' to 'earn more money' to 'buy more things' is a 'virus of the mind' or meme in technical terminology and is unlikely to bring more happiness. Hence, 'not acting on climate change if we did' is far worse, if somewhat irrelevant.

Then perhaps the secret is to convince countries like China and India that they should not try to 'keep up with Joneses' and that they are not entitled to 'enjoy' the same standard of living as the West - cos it won't bring them happiness!